From WikiWorld

Jump to: navigation, search

"A New Kind of Science", by Steven Wolfram is a landmark book bound to be a least the equal of Penroses "The Emperor's New Mind for the next generation with a new twist.

See and a cool review at

Wolfram's monumental work, does indeed herald "A New Kind of Science" and it may be that voluminous a work is needed expel the old paradigms. His ego, like that of Hawking and Penrose, is tolerable since he has earned the privilege and his copious notes are impeccable. He leads us down the path to the understanding that the universe, so far as we can understand it is a manifestation of universal computing stemming from simple rules and initial conditions. To understanding it further will reveal its complexity rather than it's simplicity. He suggests there can be no simple theory of everything (T.O.E). Affirming that science has run into a quantum brick wall. And simple equivalent models of universal computation will from this day forward reveal the complexity of everything.

I find this disconcerting. Quantum Event Time-space (QET)| is a T.O.E., or so I think....

The book, to me, is a bible on the emerging information systems model of the universe. It provides an almost perfect background for the Quantum Event Time-space (QET) model.

I am a bit dumbfounded that such an intelligent person, who understands the problem so well, would miss the quantum time space model. Either, the model is useless, which it is obviously, to me, not true. It sweetly unifies quantum electrodynamics and general relativity and demystifies quantum strangeness. Is seems too obvious.

Perhaps no one understands it yet, including myself, as I have failed to formalize it completely and am still in a process of discovering the implications of the model, the details, and new areas where it can be applied. The discovery process seems endless, as Wolfram suggests it must be.

Many of us have experienced the catharsis of discovery when we contemplate the problems of physics and reach the "Ah Ha====" Now the ==== universe makes sense. We achieve a model in our mind that we are hard pressed to put into words in the context of science, but subjectively reveals the comprehensibility of nature.

Wolfram suggests that all these solutions may be equivalent. Indeed, in QET the synthetic model of quantum time space is arbitrary. The experience model, however, is based only on the numbers, the observed data independent of theory. Nature as usual, Heisenberg found, did not obey his familiar mathematics, instead it obeyed a mathematics that was obscure at the time, matrix mechanics. The synthetic model avoids all aspects of theory, except as manifest by the data.

The book is is a pretty package with not much new behind it. The science and person are both puffed up to the extreme. It explains no phenomonon and simply repackages existing science from a vantage point most of us have been advocating for a long time. At the same time the depth of the work and the person are both impressive.

Broadway producer David Merrick once said: "If you can't write your idea on the back of my business card, it's not a well thought-out idea."

That is a concern I have with Wolfram's book. But what about QET, can I distill that down to 25 words or less? How about:

In short, the physical universe is described by the familiar differential equations of physics. But differentials, i.e. dx/dt fail to reach zero as a limit. They are manifest in discrete Quanta. These binary differentials may be seen to add, cancel, or fold into another dimension universally propagating (transmission, emission) alternative future perceptions (reception, absorption) which are resolved by the receiver's perspective (observational window) manifesting everything.

That is close. But so what? That's only the beginning. Jesus compressed God's law to "Love God and each other" and the Zen is simply "being one with the All". It is the application of the idea that has meaning. And there is much more to QuantumEventTimeSpace than the central idea. The nature of transmission and reception of electromagnetic information is well known. It's only a theory of everything is we use it to explain everything. Perhaps Wolfram is right, there are no simple answers.

I think, the simple truth is right before our eyes and awaiting science to evolve to a state of observing it. Those of us you want to do science should collaborate on completing it.


My father taught me about relativity and the quantum on his knee. He taught me that all we experience is quantum events. I tried 35 years to convince my father that the universe was discrete and digital without success. I gave him Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" for father's day and he is now converted, my hat is off to Wolfram.

An excellent review of ANKOS is available at:

While Kurtzweil is not a committed DP'er (AFAIK), he is knowledgeable on the subject, and injects some much-needed credit-where-due.

See InformationPhysics.

-- JimScarver

Personal tools